MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2123591592 · doi:10.1136/hrt.2008.156372

Permanent pacemaker implantation technique: part II

2009· article· en· W2123591592 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueHeart · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCardiac pacing and defibrillation studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineAdams–Stokes syndromeHeart blockPermanent pacemakerElectrocardiographyCardiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

<b>Background:</b> Currently there is no agreement on the optimal time to treatment of breast cancer; however, given the considerable emphasis on early detection, one would expect a similar emphasis on early treatment. The purpose of our study was to assess the time interval to surgery from initiation of diagnosis among Quebec women with breast cancer and to examine the influence on waiting time of age, pattern of care and cancer stage. <b>Methods:</b> Records of physician fee-for-service claims and of hospital admissions were obtained for all Quebec women who underwent an invasive procedure for the diagnosis or treatment of breast cancer between 1992 and 1998. Waiting time was calculated as the number of days between the first diagnostic procedure and surgical treatment. <b>Results:</b> There were 29 606 episodes of breast cancer surgery among 28 100 women: 5922 mastectomies and 23 684 lumpectomies. The absolute number of episodes of breast cancer treated with surgery rose from 3626 in 1992 to 5162 in 1998. The overall median waiting time was 34 days (interquartile range [IQR] 19–62); 13.5% of the women waited longer than 90 days. The median waiting time rose from 29 days (IQR 15–54) in 1992 to 42 days (IQR 24–72) in 1998, representing a relative increase of 37% (95% confidence interval [CI] 32%–43%) after adjusting for age and cancer stage. The median waiting time increased with the number of diagnostic procedures, from 24 days (IQR 14–42) with 1 procedure to 48 days (IQR 27–84) with 3 procedures to 72 days (IQR 43–121) with 4 procedures, representing adjusted relative increases of 97% (95% CI 91%–103%) and 194% (95% CI 181%–208%), respectively. The proportion of women receiving 3 or more diagnostic procedures before surgery increased steadily over the study period, from 19.2% in 1992 to 33.0% in 1998. The median waiting time was shorter with more advanced stages of cancer: 53 days (IQR 30–86) for carcinoma in situ, 35 (IQR 20–62) for localized disease, 28 (IQR 16–49) for regional disease and 24 (IQR 11–52) for disseminated disease. <b>Interpretation:</b> Waiting time between initial diagnosis and first surgery for breast cancer has increased substantially in Quebec between 1992 and 1998. Possible explanations include increased demand, decreased resources and changes in patterns of care.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.218
Threshold uncertainty score0.216

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.024
GPT teacher head0.321
Teacher spread0.298 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it